IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v109y2012i1p67-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Management Theory, Firm Strategy, and Ambidexterity

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Minoja

    ()

Abstract

Stakeholder theory scholars have recently addressed two crucial calls: the first is for the integration of strategy and ethics, of stakeholder theory and strategic management, and the second call is for the development of a dynamic approach to stakeholder management. I have attempted to answer these calls by developing a theoretical framework that links together stakeholder management, stakeholder commitment to cooperate with the firm, key decision makers’ ethical commitment, and firm strategy. Starting from the basic assumption that managers cannot meet all stakeholders’ demands immediately and in a tailored manner, I contend, first, that an ambidextrous approach to stakeholder management is conducive to stakeholders’ commitment to cooperate for the sustainable well-being of the firm and, second, that firm strategy and key decision makers’ ethical commitment moderate the relationship between an ambidextrous stakeholder management and stakeholder commitment to cooperate. Furthermore, drawing on this theoretical framework, I attempt to address the call for the integration of strategy and ethics by proposing a three-level conceptual model that distinguishes the objectives, the field, and the levers of integration. Finally, I outline a set of propositions that, taken together, represent a first attempt to develop a dynamic approach to stakeholder management. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Mario Minoja, 2012. "Stakeholder Management Theory, Firm Strategy, and Ambidexterity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 67-82, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:67-82
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1380-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-012-1380-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manuel Branco & Lúcia Rodrigues, 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 111-132, December.
    2. Silvana Signori & Gianfranco Rusconi, 2009. "Ethical Thinking in Traditional Italian Economia Aziendale and the Stakeholder Management Theory: The Search for Possible Interactions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 303-318, November.
    3. Jensen, Michael C., 2002. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(02), pages 235-256, April.
    4. Dima Jamali, 2008. "A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 213-231, September.
    5. Andy Lockett & Jeremy Moon & Wayne Visser, 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Management Research: Focus, Nature, Salience and Sources of Influence," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 115-136, January.
    6. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(01), pages 53-73, January.
    7. Elms, Heather & Brammer, Stephen & Harris, Jared D. & Phillips, Robert A., 2010. "New Directions in Strategic Management and Business Ethics," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(03), pages 401-425, July.
    8. Sybille Sachs & Marc Maurer, 2009. "Toward Dynamic Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 535-544, April.
    9. R. Freeman & Kirsten Martin & Bidhan Parmar, 2007. "Stakeholder Capitalism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 303-314, September.
    10. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(04), pages 479-502, October.
    11. Goodstein, Jerry D. & Wicks, Andrew C., 2007. "Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility: Making Business Ethics A Two-Way Conversation," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(03), pages 375-398, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luu Trong Tuan, 2016. "Organizational Ambidexterity, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and I-Deals: The Moderating Role of CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 145-159, April.
    2. Jose-Luis Godos-Díez & Roberto Fernández-Gago & Laura Cabeza-García, 2015. "Business Education and Idealism as Determinants of Stakeholder Orientation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 439-452, October.
    3. Donal Crilly, 2013. "Recasting Enterprise Strategy: Towards Stakeholder Research That Matters to General Managers," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1427-1447, December.
    4. Scandelius, Christina & Cohen, Geraldine, 2016. "Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3487-3499.
    5. Dina Tomsic, 2013. "Towards A Relational View Of Corporate Governance," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 9(2), pages 71-88.
    6. Sefa Hayibor & Colleen Collins, 2016. "Motivators of Mobilization," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 351-374, December.
    7. McAdam, Maura & Miller, Kristel & McAdam, Rodney, 2016. "Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 50, pages 69-78.
    8. Merriam Haffar & Cory Searcy, 2017. "Classification of Trade-offs Encountered in the Practice of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 495-522, February.
    9. repec:spr:minecn:v:30:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s13563-016-0098-z is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:67-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.